A high-rise building is planned on the museum grounds
In the capital, legal proceedings are underway regarding the attempt to construct a 16-story residential and hotel complex in the courtyard of the Museum of Prominent Figures of Ukrainian Culture. Cultural experts believe that this construction could affect the visual perception of the museum, which consists of a series of buildings where notable figures like Lesya Ukrainka, Mykola Lysenko, Mykhailo Starytskyi, and Panas Saksahanskyi once lived.
The situation has been examined by Kashtan NEWS.
History of Establishment
The Literary and Memorial Museum of Prominent Figures of Ukrainian Culture was founded in 1987, located on Saksahanskoho Street (formerly Mariinsko-Bohoyavlenska, which was essentially a suburb of Kyiv in the 19th century) and consists of five houses. At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, families of distinguished Ukrainian artists — Lesya Ukrainka, Mykola Lysenko, Mykhailo Starytskyi, and Panas Saksahanskyi — lived nearby.
5 These individuals, along with their families, were united by a long-standing friendship, shared creative interests, and an active civic stance aimed at uplifting national consciousness. As a result, they created a unique artistic and cultural hub, which their contemporaries referred to as the Ukrainian Parnassus.
The museum's collections, which are continually being updated, house numerous genuine treasures of national culture: interesting cultural and social programs, as literature, musical arts, theater, and folk creativity all fall within this activity's context.
6 Attempts at Destruction
Clouds began to gather over the museum when the infamous Leonid Chernovetskyi was elected mayor of Kyiv. The local authorities and their affiliates set their sights on the plot of land located within the museum. Consequently, this land was allocated for the construction of a residential and hotel complex.
Currently, the construction is commissioned by LLC "NVK Restin," which is linked in the media to the Kyiv developer Vadym Stolar. They plan to erect a 16-story building on the museum's premises (in its courtyard).
“The museum consists of five estates that are situated close to each other: part is on Zhylianska Street, and the other part is on Saksahanskoho Street,” clarifies Kyiv heritage protector Dmytro Perov.
7 Between these buildings, he continues, there is a free passage. This has become a point of contention between the developer, local residents, law enforcement, and the Ministry of Culture and Strategic Communications of Ukraine. The relentless builders want to erect their concrete structure in this location.
Legal Tug-of-War
As is customary in situations involving disputes, the courts have become involved. In this case, the dispute has been ongoing for at least four years: the cassation appeal is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court.
It all started when the relevant ministry opposed the new construction: the agency did not approve the works and the commencement of the construction itself. The developer then decided to sue and filed an appropriate claim.
Subsequently, the capital prosecutor's office intervened, also filing a lawsuit. Its claim concerned the cancellation of the land lease agreement, which, by the way, has already expired.
8 Furthermore, the lawsuit points to the necessity of removing obstacles to the targeted use of cultural land. This means that the land where cultural heritage objects are located must not have anything that would hinder their intended use, such as hosting cultural and educational events.
Building a 16-story structure between the historical buildings could impede this. Therefore, prosecutors are trying to eliminate this obstacle.
Is Justice on the Developer's Side?
In this case, the panel of judges of the Cassation Economic Court has announced a break until January 15 of the following year.
Dmytro Perov suggests that the court was preparing to announce a decision not in favor of the prosecutor's office or the preservation of monuments, but rather in favor of the developer.
However, he adds, the presence of activists in the courtroom and the presence of television cameras positively influenced the course of the hearing. Thus, the court likely hesitated to take such a step and chose to postpone the session.
9 The prosecutor's lawsuit from the Ministry of Culture and Strategic Communications is equally unresolved. According to Dmytro Perov, the cassation court has sent the case for reconsideration. As a result, during the repeated court sessions, the correctness of the previous ruling regarding the impossibility of construction on the museum's land plot was confirmed. Naturally, the developer disagreed with this and filed an appeal.
“Thus, as we can see, Mr. Stolar is not abandoning the idea of developing this plot and is trying to retain this right in various courts,” concludes the heritage protector.
A Possible Precedent
A rather interesting and even unique situation is developing around the prosecutor's lawsuit.
According to Perov, the prosecutor's office has chosen quite an unusual subject of dispute, namely the removal of obstacles to land use.
Our judicial system, he emphasizes, does not yet handle "matters" such as cultural heritage lands, the use of such plots for their intended purposes. Moreover, it is equally challenging to prove that new construction could harm the visual or conceptual perception of the historical territory or altogether prevent the holding of cultural events.
0 “The museum's territory is a single complex: essentially, it is a sort of 'small Pyrohiv' in the center of Kyiv. The space between the buildings was used for cultural-themed evenings, poetry readings, and so forth. Therefore, if a monolithic concrete obstruction arises there, it will be utterly impossible to conduct all these events,” stresses the activist.
1 However, Dmytro Perov emphasizes that there have not yet been legal precedents for denying construction solely on the grounds that it would create significant obstacles to carrying out activities that pertain to the intended use of the land plot.
Nevertheless, there is hope for the Supreme Court, which may reach a fair decision. This is because all previous judicial instances have examined the case solely within the framework of material procedural law, while the prosecutor's claim is based more on international legal acts for the protection of cultural and historical heritage objects.
Yevhen DEM'YANOV